Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 21 Sep 2006 00:48:05 -0700 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] move put_task_struct() reaping into a thread [Re: 2.6.18-rt1] | From | Bill Huey (hui) <> |
| |
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 09:29:08AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Bill Huey <billh@gnuppy.monkey.org> wrote: > > I overloaded another reaping thread that was doing largely similar > > functionality in that it was also reaping, so I don't think it's that > > bad. I did it from a cleanliness point of view with the code tree. > > It's the "desched_thread" in fork.c that I'm using. It seems to be the > > right thing to do. I'm sure Esben will follow up on this. > > the reason why i added desched_thread was not because it's "more right" > to do this from a separate context, but simply because the resource
I only did that because I saw it there and I assumed it the was the correct thing to use and that's why I used it.
> freed by it is not being freed via RCU by the upstream kernel. If that > resource (mm_struct) were freed by RCU we'd have its rt-friendly > reapdown "for free" and no desched_thread would be needed at all.
Well, it's difficult to say. I can't say which is the best method. If the upstream kernel used RCU function in a task allocation or task struct reading in the first place then call_rcu() would be a clear choice. However, I didn't see it used in that way (I could be wrong) so I use the next closest thing that seems reasonable which is the thread desched_thread(). It use it to avoid overloading the sematics of call_rcu() to be anything other than a pure RCU callback. I suggest talking to Esben an Paul about this to get their view on the matter.
Either method, call_rcu or desched_thread does the trick outside of the scheduler path and fixes the problem. It's your choice.
bill
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |